Restoring New York City
Proposals for Improving Ecological and Human Health
Edited by Dr. James A. Danoff-Burg
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University

Projects Available
Manhattan Forests - NYC

Project Home

Listed By Borough
Listed By Ecosystem

Bayside Acacia Cemetery
Central Park's North End
East River Oyster Beds
Fresh Creek Marshland
Governors Island
Harlem River Yards
Inwood Forests
Inwood Marsh & Nature Center
Manhattan Forests
Manhattan Marsh Re-creation
Manhattan Maritime Holly Forest
Northern Manhattan Forests
Operation Renovo Gardens
Rockaway Beach
Time Capsule NYC
West Harlem Marshlands

Manhattan Woodland Restoration Project


Expanding Deciduous Forests in

Central and Inwood Hill Parks


Creating the Harlem Park


Allison Devlin


Columbia University

E3B Department

Urban Restoration & Ecology


Fall 2006

Manhattan Woodland Restoration Project

Expanding Deciduous Forests in

Central and Inwood Hill Parks


Creating the Harlem Park

Allison Devlin


Table of Contents                                                              




The Management Plan………………………………………………

          Central & Inwood Hill Parks: Strengthening the Forests

          A Park for Harlem……………………………………………

          American Elm: Manhattan Island as a Species Reservoir…



             Ecophysiological Constraints………………………………

          Population Theory……………………………………………

          Community Ecology……………………………………………


History of the Sites…………………………………………………

          Central Park……………………………………………………

          Inwood Hill Park………………………………………………



Current Problems……………………………………………………

          Central & Inwood Hill Parks: Weakening Forests………

          Harlem: an Ecological Sink…………………………………

          American Elm: a Species in the Red…………………………



          Central, Inwood Hill & Harlem Parks………………………

          American Elm: A Species in the Green………………………














Abstract: Restoration & Theory


Restoration ecology in New York City is a challenging necessity.  The human footprint is heavy in all five boroughs; inevitably, as the ecosystem has suffered, so, too has human quality of life.  The purpose, therefore, of effective restoration ecology is to both realign natural processes and include people in the process and benefits.  Restorationists should aim to work themselves out of a job—to engineer a self-sustaining ecosystem—and include the human element in their projects.  Before constructing any management plan, however, restoration ecologists must first identify and apply to their project appropriate ecological theories.  Such theories help to focus and direct restoration efforts, and provide a workable frame for processes impacted by (among others) ecophysiological challenges, community ecology and population biology. 


Woodland restoration on Manhattan Island calls for careful planning and long-term commitment.  Robust ecological theory is vital for such strategy and adaptive management.  Theories of central importance to this project include ecophysiological constraints, population genetics, population dynamics and metapopulations and community ecology.  Each trait is detailed below, and examined in relation to the needs of a deciduous woodland community.


The Management Plan


The Manhattan Woodland Restoration Project has an expected duration of 15 years, and involves the New York Department of Recreation and Parks (NYC DRP), local construction companies, and multitude of volunteers.  Local community involvement and education is key to the success of this project, for both the short- and long-term goals.  Educational programs are run for the duration of this project.  Both management and education adapt along with the forests.  Recreation activities   


Central & Inwood Hill Parks: Strengthening the Forests


The Manhattan Woodland Restoration Project calls for the fortification and expansion of existing woodlands in Central and Inwood Hill Parks.  Phase I involves soil and terrain management, and the planting of seed and sapling.  Phase II encompasses management and animal species reintroduction.  Phase III includes the addition of new individuals to the parks, and propagule collection.  The collection and subsequent replanting of propagules in the tristate area serves to promote mainland diversity and resilience in the face of climate change.  Invasive species (e.g., Asian longhorned beetle & elm bark beetle) are eradicated and prevented before and throughout the project.   


Phase I: Soil and water quality samples are taken from each site.  Both soil and water are treated as necessary to rebalance pH and nutrient load; this task is accomplished by NYC DRP employees and volunteers.  Terrain is modified using historical topographic maps as guidelines (see Manhattan Topographic Map below).  Treated fill is collected from local soils (e.g., New Jersey) and hauled in by local construction workers.  NYC DRP employees and volunteers, along with construction workers, sculpt the terrain as necessary.  Erosion is controlled via proper filling techniques, limiting human traffic and fostering a robust understory (which will lock soil in place).


















Topographic Map of Manhattan. Photo:


Once soil has been treated and sculpted, NYC DRP and volunteers begin planting American elm, maple, oak and dogwood saplings (which is the optimal time for these trees to be planted; Maschinski 2006; Nilsson 2005; Newhouse & Madgewick 1968).  Fern and Virginia creeper seedlings are planted to promote understory growth.  All plants are provided by Princeton Nurseries of New Jersey.  In Central Park, the plantings occur in and around the North Woods; in Inwood Hill Park, this occurs within and around the entirety of the forest.  Employees and volunteers then water and tend to the newly-planted flora throughout Phases I and II.


Phase II: The majority of the project is composed of Phase II.  This involves adaptive management and, when necessary, replanting of desired flora and the eradication of invasive species.  Wildlife reintroduction of the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is conducted.  Other animal species—from songbirds to winged invertebrates—are expected to repopulate the area as the woodland matures and expands.  Both employees and volunteers reintroduce and monitor the faunal populations.


Phase III: Adaptive management of the Central and Inwood Hill Park forests continues, and populations are monitored by employees and volunteers.  New individuals of all species are planted or reintroduced, to further promote genetic diversity within and among the two parks.  Propagules of the tree species are collected and sent to the tristate area for planting.                       


A Park for Harlem


East Harlem contains few trees or parks.  To improve the quality of life in the area, the Manhattan Woodland Restoration Project proposes the establishment of a park in a series of vacant lots.  Deciduous forest species are planted, and animal species reintroduced, to engineer a woodland ecosystem.  The Harlem Park is the third forest community established by this project, and serves to further diversify the genetics of the Manhattan metapopulation.  Phase I involves the removal of concrete and other human waste from the designated vacant lots, as well as terrain management and floral planting.  Phase II calls for the reintroduction of animal species, and adaptive management.  Phase III, much like that for Central and Inwood Hill Parks, involves the introduction of new individuals and propagule collection.


The Harlem component of the Manhattan Woodlands Restoration Project is coordinated with the NYC DRP’s “Greening East Harlem” Plan (Rosen & Greenfeld 2006).  This plan involves planting trees along Harlem’s roadsides, and suggests the transformation of vacant lots into green areas.  Trees along the roads serve as wildlife corridors between park networks, and employees of each project cooperate to establish Harlem Park.  


Phase I: Vacant lots within East Harlem are surveyed and cleaned for the establishment of Harlem Park.  This involves NYC DRP employees, volunteers and local construction workers.  Construction workers tear up cement, pavement and other waste, recycling the materials whenever possible.  The construction company then imports treated fill to the area, which is then sculpted by employees, volunteers and construction workers (see Manhattan Topographic Map above).  Soil and water are treated as necessary, to rebalance pH and nutrient load.  Erosion control involves minimizing human traffic and understory promotion.


Upon completion of soil treatment and erosion control, saplings (American elm, oak, maple, and dogwood) and seedlings (ferns and Virginia creeper) are planted by employees and volunteers.  All plantings are provided by Princeton Nurseries of New Jersey. 


Phase II: Adaptive management is carried out by NYC DRP employees and volunteers, and involves replanting natives and eradicating invasive species.  Wildlife reintroduction of the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is conducted.  Other animal species—from songbirds to winged invertebrates—are expected to repopulate the area as the woodland matures and expands.  Both employees and volunteers reintroduce and monitor the faunal populations.


Phase III: Much like Phase III for Central and Inwood Hill Parks management, new individuals of each species are introduced to the forest.  Propagules are collected and planted in mainland areas.  As this forest is engineered and lacks the historical foundation of Central and Inwood Hill Park forests, management may be more intensive and require longer-term investment.         


American Elm: Manhattan Island as a Species Reservoir


The American elm population reintroduction follows the aforementioned Phases I, II and III, but requires a slightly modified, species-specific protocol.  The project follows recommendations from previous American elm reintroduction efforts (Campanella 2003; Carley 2006; Slavicek 2004; Slavicek et al. 2005; Wikipedia 2006: American elm). 


The Princeton and Valley Forge strains of American elm are the most resistant to Dutch Elm Disease (Carley 2006; Princeton Nurseries 2006), and are used in this project.  Elm saplings are planted no closer than 50 feet to one another (Carley 2006), which prevents root fusion and prohibits the potential transmission of the fungus.  Elms are closely monitored for sign of wilt and elm bark beetle infestation; if infected, the sapling is immediately treated via injection of Fenpropimorph-phosphate and -sulfate (Scheffer et al. 1988) or, if it has progressed to an advanced stage, removed.              


Introduction: The Theories

Ecophysiological Constraints


Manhattan’s urban environment presents woodland ecosystems with a unique set of above- and below-ground ecophysiological challenges.  High concentrations of CO2, exposure to light and edge effects, microclimatic stressors such as urban heat island effects, and soil and water quality all impact the health of an ecosystem.


The high rate of fossil fuel combustion in Manhattan generates 416 ± 68μatm CO2 (Raymond et al. 1997).  This is a significant increase from early 20th century conditions, where average air concentrations of CO2 were 294 ± 22μatm (Ziska et al. 2005).  While increased CO2 may favor some plant growth (especially C3 photosynthesizers such as trees), a disproportionate amount of CO2:O2 drastically reduces efficiency of such plants, especially in the face of increasing temperatures (Ehleringer & Sandquist 2006).  Given this increase in carbon dioxide, C4 plants are projected to lose their competitive advantage over C3 taxa (Ehleringer & Sandquist 2006).  Both grasses and trees suffer from such air pollution.


Much of Manhattan was clear-cut to pave the way for skyscrapers.  Remaining woodlands were therefore left exposed to high levels of light and edge.  Light levels above those for optimal photosynthesis result in numerous stressors on plants, and may induce leaf mortality (Ehleringer & Sandquist 2006).  Photoinhibition is also possible, as excess light energy may bleach leaves and inhibit photosynthetic pathways (Ehleringer & Sandquist 2006).  Such light exposure is exacerbated by increased forest edge, where light penetrates strongly and more readily into the forest understory, inevitably stressing shade plant species, saplings and seedlings.


Microclimate is an important consideration for any restoration project.  The high proportion of paved roads and cement buildings induces increased variability of climate.  Excessive light increases soil temperatures, and degrades soil nutrients (Ehleringer & Sandquist 2006).  Urban heat island effect is especially influential on woodland biodiversity and hardiness; high ambient temperature also degrades soil and nutrient quality, and increased evapotranspiration of the city’s flora (Ehleringer & Sandquist 2006).


Soil and water quality are critical factors in the health of any ecosystem, especially one which experiences ecophysiological stress.  Manhattan’s woodlands survive in the face of erosion, soil toxicity, nutrient leeching, and poor water quality.  High human traffic and non-existant understories contribute to soil erosion and compaction.  Topographic heterogeneity of soil is important in promoting biodiversity (Larkin et al. 2006).  Toxicity is achieved through pollution, where soil pH is acidified and heavy metals abound (Ehleringer & Sandquist 2006; Sauer 1998).  Exposure to light and edge contributes to nutrient leeching, where precipitation and subsequent evaporation release nutrient stores from the soil, making them unavailable to primary producers.  Water quality is of utmost importance in woodland ecosystems.  As discussed by Ehleringer & Sandquist (2006), deciduous trees play a critical role in belowground water redistribution, which benefits not only the trees but also the understory.  Soil depth is directly proportional to water availability (Ehleringer & Sandquist 2006); woodland restoration therefore requires a minimum soil depth, to optimize water stores.                


Population Genetics, Dynamics and Metapopulations


Populations are key to the survival of any species.  Restoration projects must therefore incorporate population theory into practice.  Theories of utmost importance are those which detail population genetics, population dynamics and metapopulations.


Population genetics is a relatively new field, yet has important implications for the long-term success of any restoration project.  Genetic diversity is pivotal in any species’ adaptation to its environment, and necessary to prevent inbreeding (Falk et al. 2006).  Genetic architecture is important when creating a founder population, or when introducing a new individual to a pre-existing population; the passing of traits depends on reproductive mode and genetic history (or diversity) of a species (Falk et al. 2006).


Population dynamics and metapopulation theories detail the change populations undertake in response to environmental, genetic or demographic variation, and how such changes impact a population network (Maschinski 2006).  Population viability analyses are useful tools for evaluating the sustainability of a given population; such tools include minimum viable population sizes and elasticity analyses (Maschinski 2006).  Accounting for metapopulation dynamics is important for fitting a restoration project (Maschinski 2006); a metapopulation analysis affords a project a wider-scale evaluation of the project’s impacts.  This analysis is especially important when founding a new population; interbreeding among other populations must be promoted.  Genetic exchange between populations ensures long-term survival and sustainability of all populations involved.


Community Ecology


Diversity begets diversity.  Thus, the more diverse a woodland community, the more diversity is promoted.  The increase in species heterogeneity also increases the resilience of a community (Menninger & Palmer 2006).  The restoration of Manhattan’s woodland communities must account for regional conditions, environmental and habitat influences and biotic interactions (Menninger & Palmer 2006). 


The dispersal rate and pool of a given species influences the rate at which a community establishes and is maintained.  Abiotic filters and natural disturbance play key roles in community function; restoration projects should aim to promote such processes.  Ecophysiological constrainers such as light, water and nutrients are also abiotic filters; when restoring a community, the importance of optimizing such constraints is apparent.  Especially in the case of woodlands, natural disturbance is a vital process for nutrient turnover and succession (Menninger & Palmer 2006).  As in the case of biodiversity, environmental heterogeneity is important in any ecosystem; disturbance promotes heterogeneity, and therefore promotes ecosystem processes.


Biotic interactions involve energy exchange and competition between species, the former of which is usually represented through food web diagrams.  Trophic interactions are usually described as predator-prey relations, where both trophic levels play key roles in community structure (Menninger & Palmer 2006).  Competition is also apparent in healthy communities, where both plants and animals compete for a given set of resources.  Competition theory is an especially important tool for evaluating native and invasive species interactions.                           


History of the Sites


Central Park (see Maps A & B below; Wikipedia 2006: Central Park)


Central Park was established in 1857, where it replaced central Manhattan’s poor neighborhoods.  Soil fill was brought in from New Jersey, and park architects Olmsted and Vaux subsequently planted 1,500 species of trees and ornamental plants.  Throughout the centuries, Central Park endured many phases of care and decay.  The Park is presently managed by the Central Park Conservancy, which provides constant biotic and architectural husbandry.  Central Park is one of the most-visited areas in New York City, and annually draws in about 25 million visitors.  Central Park is famous for its tree-lined walkways and natural beauty.


The North Woods of Central Park are found in the northwest corner, and contains the Ravine designed by Olmsted and Vaux (North Woods: C105, 2006).  The designers aimed to replicate the woodlands found in the Adirondack Mountains.  Though relatively remote from the rest of the park, the North Woods trails are frequented by birders and nature enthusiasts.

















Maps A & B.
The map on the left (Map A) displays Central Park in its entirety.  The map above (Map B) details the northern quadrant of Central Park. Photo credits:;  


 Inwood Hill Park (see Map C below; New York City Parks and Recreation 2006: About Inwood Park; Wikipedia 2006: Inwood Park)


Inwood Hill Park has a long history of human use, from the Native Americans to native urbanites.  In pre-Colonial days, the Lanape tribe used the area for temporary encampments and hunting excursions.  Colonists then farmed the area in the 17th and 18th centuries and, during the Revolutionary War, established a fort on the Hill to better spot and defend against British soldiers.  Homes and an orphanage were built in the 19th century, but were subsequently leveled to create the Park.  Present-day Inwood contains Manhattan’s last natural forest and salt marsh.









 Map C. Inwood Hill Park. Photo credit:  

Harlem (see Map D below; Rose & Greenfeld 2006; Wikipedia 2006: Harlem)


Present-day Harlem is home to much of Manhattan’s minorities, and has long been associated with crime and poverty.  Originally settled by Dutch colonists in the late 1600s, in the 1700s to mid-1800s Harlem was a wealthy farming community.  After the 1850s, the area began a marked decline; it became a largely black community in the early 1900s.  Low-cost living arrangements and large-scale public works projects further degraded the local environment, and Harlem quickly became a ghetto.  At present, Harlem is essentially a site without ecological history.









Map D. East Harlem Parks. Photo credit: Rosen & Greenfeld 2006.            

Current Problems


Central & Inwood Hill Parks: Weakening Forests


Both the Central and Inwood Hill Parks are popular recreation sites, where visitors enjoy strolling or running along paths, playing sports in the fields, and exploring the woodlands.  Human recreation, however, bears a toll on the forests.  In light of anthropogenic activities—from park visitors to pollution—New York’s woodlands are weakening. 


Park visitors are both an asset and a cost to any park.  While public recreation is a major factor in a park, certain activities are an especially heavy burden on natural areas.  Soil compaction is a serious problem throughout the forests; people who venture off the paved path inadvertently compress the soil, making it difficult for seeds to establish and grow.  Exposed root systems are constantly stepped upon and damaged, and understory plants are crushed underfoot.  Erosion is an inevitable result, especially on hilly landscapes.  High human use is responsible for the homogenization of park topography, which further suppresses biodiversity.  Human presence may also disrupt animal activities, and may even result in the death of individual animals.


Pollution is a constant threat to the integrity of Central and Inwood Hill Parks.  As discussed in the abstract, soil and water quality are of utmost importance in maintaining the health of an ecosystem.  Given the concentration of Manhattan’s fossil fuel combustion and waste output, soil, water and air quality are suboptimal.  Plants and animals are stressed by excessive concentrations of CO2 and other toxins (Ziska et al. 2005), and may therefore experience depressed productivity and reproduction.          


Harlem: an Ecological Sink (see Map E below; Rosen & Greenfeld 2006)


This restoration project focuses on East Harlem, which begins above 116th street.  Several buildings are in disrepair, and vacant lots abound.  Few parks are found in the area, and those that are present—namely, the Marcus Garvey and St. Nicholas Parks—are relatively small and receive little management.  The quality of life—from air to aesthetics—for Harlem’s residents suffers from lack of greenery.


Map E. Human Land Use in East Harlem. Photo credit: Rosen & Greenfeld 2006.

American Elm: A Species in the Red


The Manhattan Woodland Restoration Project has adopted as its flagship species the American elm (Ulmus americana).  An outbreak of the fungal Dutch Elm Disease occurred in the 20th century, when a European lumber shipment introduced the elm bark beetle to America (Campanella 2003).  The fungus quickly spread throughout the United States, and nearly eradicated the species.  Manhattan is now home to some of the few remaining stands of American elm.  Several efforts have been initiated to restore the elm to its native range (Carley 2006; Nilsson 2005; Slavicek 2004; Slavicek et al. 2005), and disease-resistant variations of the tree have been developed, with varying degrees of success (Carley 2006; Princeton Nurseries 2006; Wikipedia 2006: American elm).  The occurrence of the fungus has declined, but elms of all strains are still at risk.

The American Elm.
Photo credit:





Central, Inwood Hill & Harlem Parks: Ecological & Residential Assets


The restoration and creation of woodland ecosystems in Manhattan provide benefits to both nature and mankind.  An island metapopulation of deciduous forests promotes genetic and species diversity, ecosystem resilience and sustainable natural areas.  The benefits to New York City’s residents are many, and include carbon sequestration, recreation, and improved quality of life.


The natural benefits of this project include diversity, adaptability and sustainability.  By introducing new individuals to each of the forests, genetic diversity increases.  With the addition of woodland in Harlem, existing deciduous populations in Central and Inwood Hill Parks can further diversify their genetic pools.  The American elm especially benefits from increased genetic diversity. 


Species diversity also increases with the addition of tree and understory flora, which subsequently begets ecological resilience (Naeem 2006).  Increased plant species diversity also invites increased faunal diversity.  The long-term survival of endangered species such as the Indiana bat is further ensured by such habitat heterogeneity.  With adaptability comes sustainability; a robust ecosystem is far more likely to survive major ecological changes, and therefore sustain itself (Menninger & Palmer 2006; Naeem 2006).  The presence of Central and Inwood Hill Parks also further aids the establishment and sustainability of the proposed Harlem Park.


Given that the urban heat island effect has profound impacts on local climate and vegetative adaptation, future generations of Manhattan’s woodland species may be well-suited to global warming events (Fang, pers. Comm.., 2006).  Propagules of each tree species would be planted throughout the northeastern United States, and would most likely fare better than non-adapted individuals in the face of warming climate.  Thus, Manhattan’s woodlands may aid in the long-term survival of mainland forests.


The benefits to the residents of Manhattan are many.  Increased numbers and species of biota—especially of woody flora—results in increased carbon capture.  With the high amount of CO2 anthropogenically produced each day, the forests provide an excellent means of carbon sequestration and, ultimately, climate control. 


Recreation is another major benefit of the Manhattan Woodland Restoration Project.  While people will be discouraged from walking off the trails, nature enthusiasts will enjoy the increased number of plant and animal species, while joggers will benefit from the locally-improved air quality.  Educational programs will introduce school and community groups to the natural processes of the forest, and will further improve public appreciation for and involvement in the natural world.  Labor for restoration will call for many volunteers, which will further promote public investment in the prolonged health of Manhattan’s woodlands. 


A healthier ecosystem promotes healthier lifestyles.  The increased forest cover will not only improve air quality, but will also improve the aesthetic appeal of an area such as Harlem.  The overall quality of life of Manhattan’s residents—especially of those located in Harlem—will greatly improve with the strengthening and addition of deciduous woodlands.                   


American Elm: A Species in the Green


Manhattan Island provides an ideal site for the establishment of an American elm reservoir.  The introduction of Dutch Elm Disease-resistant strains of American elm would further strengthen already-established individuals.  The Princeton and Valley Forge strains are the most resistant (Carley 2006; Princeton Nurseries 2006), and may interbreed not only with pre-existing elms, but also with each other.  This interbreeding would possibly foster increased disease resistance.  Propagules from subsequent generations could then be collected and introduced to sites throughout mainland North America, to further restore the species to its natural range. 


The American elm also has important ecosystem functions.  Not only does the species contribute to biodiversity, but it is also a critical microhabitat.  The endangered Indiana bat roosts within the American elm (New Jersey Government: Indiana bat).  Successful reintroduction of this species requires the presence and prevalence of the American elm.   








Soil Treatment






Year I







Year II







Year III







Year IV







Year V







Year VI







Year VII














Year IX







Year X







Year XI







Year XII














Year XIV







Year XV







Timetable Detail


Phase I: Years I & II


Five full-time and ten part-time employees are hired from the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, and (for the Harlem vacant lot project) from a local construction company, to prepare the sites for restoration.  NYC DRP employees test soil pH and nutrient levels in all parks, and treat accordingly; also eradicate invasive species as necessary.  Construction workers renovate the land in Harlem, and bring in treated fill for all parks.  NYC DRP employees work with construction to create suitable topographic heterogeneity.  Once completed, NYC DRP employees and ten to twenty volunteers begin planting saplings and seedlings.  Labor also includes educational programs for park visitors.      


Phase II: Years III-V, III-X


Management plan is adapted as needed.  In Years III-V, NYC DRP employees and school/community volunteers reintroduce wildlife species (e.g., red-tailed hawk; Indiana bat).  In Years III-X, all laborers monitor both plant and animal populations.  Invasive species prevention and eradication occur as necessary.  Soil is monitored throughout this phase.  Educational programs are modified according to progression of the woodlands. 


Phase III: Years XI-XV


Management plan is adapted as needed.  Monitoring continues for both plant and animal species.  NYC DRP employees, with the aid of volunteers, introduce new individuals (plant and animal) to further promote genetic diversity.  Propagules taken from all three populations are removed and planted in the mainland portion of the tri-state area.  Educational programs continue.   


Budget…………………………………………………………………Total: $1,514,100


Years I & II: $521,600 (~$260,800/yr.)

Years III-XV: $992,500 (~$76,350/yr.)


Labor (NYC DPR, researchers & construction):


Total Cost, Years I-XV: $1,336,000


-Full-time employees, Years I & II (five people):    $120,000/yr.

                                    Years III-XV (two people):     $48,000/yr.   

-Part-time employees, Years I & II (ten people):        $80,000/yr.

                                    Years III-XV (three people):   $24,000/yr.

-Volunteers,  Years I-XV (twenty to one hundred people): $0/yr.


Soil Treatment by NYC DPR:


Total Cost, Years I-XV: $57,500 

-Lab Analyses with Soil Quality Assessment Kit (Cannon & Winder 2004):

[$500 per kit, 11 tests per kit, one kit for all sites= $500 per year]

Years I-XV: $7,500

-Rebalancing & Renutrification, Years I-II: $50,000  


Plantings from Princeton Nurseries:


Total Cost, Years I-II: $70,600

-American Elm (300 Princeton & Valley Forge saplings): $22,500

-Maple (300 Red & Sugar saplings): $10,000

-Oak (300 White saplings): $11,500

-Dogwood (450 saplings): $13,000

-Ferns (300 lbs. of seed, $42.00/lb.): $12,600

-Virginia Creeper (4,000 seeds, $10 for 40 seeds): $1000

Wildlife Reintroductions:


Total Cost, Years III-V: $50,000

-Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis): $ 25,000

-Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis): $ 25,000



Campanella, T.J. 2003. Republic of Shade: Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (3).


Carley, B. Saving the American Elm. Accessed 16 October 2006.


Cannon, K. & J. Winder. 2006. Soil Quality Assessment Tools: What Can They Do For You?$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/crop8196. Accessed 25 November 2006. 


Ehleringer, J.R. & D.R. Sandquist. 2006. Ecophysiological Constraints on Plant Responses in a Restoration Setting in Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Ed. D.A. Falk, M.A. Palmer, & J.B. Zedler. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (42-58).


Falk, D.A., C.M. Richards, A.M. Montalvo & E.E. Knapp. 2006. Population and Ecological Genetics in Restoration Ecology in Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Ed. D.A. Falk, M.A. Palmer, & J.B. Zedler. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (14-41).


Fang, J. 2006. Personal communication: Urban heat islands as global warming microcosms.


Maschinski, J. 2006. Implications of Population Dynamic and Metapopulation Theory for Restoration in Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Ed. D.A. Falk, M.A. Palmer, & J.B. Zedler. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (59-87).


Menninger, H.L. & M.A. Palmer. 2006. Restoring Ecological Communities: From Theory to Practice in Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Ed. D.A. Falk, M.A. Palmer, & J.B. Zedler. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (88-112).


Newhouse, M.E. & H.A.I. Madgewick. 1968. Comparative Seedling Growth of Four Hardwood Species. Forest Science 14(1): 27-30.


New Jersey Government. Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Accessed 15 October 2006.


New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. “About Inwood Park.” Accessed 15 October 2006.


Nilsson, G. 2005. Endangered Species Handbook. Animal Welfare Institute. Chapter: Projects—Saving the American Elm and Chestnut Trees.


Princeton Nurseries. ‘Princeton’ American Elm; ‘Valley Forge’ American Elm; White Oak; Sugar Maple; Red Maple. Accessed 13 October 2006.


Raymond, P.A., N.F. Caraco & J.J. Cole. 1997. Carbon dioxide concentration and atmospheric flux in the Hudson River. Estuaries 20(2): 381-390.


Rosen, L. & J. Greenfeld. 2006. Greening East Harlem: A Community Forestry Management Plan. City of New York Parks & Recreation. Accessed 25 November 2006.


Sauer, L.J. 1998. The Once and Future Forest. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (46-47).


Scheffer, R.J., A.C. Brakenhoff, A. Kerkenaar & D.M. Elgersma. 1988. Control of Dutch elm disease by the sterol biosynthesis inhibitors fenpropimorph and fenpropidin. European Journal of Plant Pathology 94(3): 161-173.


Slavicek, J.M. 2004. Restoration of the American Elm in Ohio and the Eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Bulletin.


Slavicek, J.M., A. Boose, D. Balser & N. Cavender. 2005. Restoration of the American Elm in Forested Landscapes. Proceedings: 16th U.S. Department of Agriculture Interagency Research 2005.


Wikipedia. “American Elm.” Accessed 13 October 2006.

------------. “Central Park.” Accessed 15 October 2006.

------------. “Harlem.” Accessed 16 October 2006.

------------. “Inwood Park.” Accessed 16 October 2006.


Ziska, L.H., S.D. Emche, E.L. Johnson, K. George, D.R. Reed & R.C. Sicher. 2005. Alterations in the production and concentration of selected alkaloids as a function of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and air temperature: implications for ethno-pharmacology. Global Change Biology 11(10): 1798-1807.



Last Updated by James Danoff-Burg, 20 Dec 06